One of the official design intentions of 4E was to make it so that any race could play any class in combat with reasonable effectiveness. They did a good job with designing racial abilities for that, overall. But ability scores are still a serious problem. You start running into mathematical issues with your attack rolls if the primary attack stat for your class starts below an 18. In 4E, attack bonuses are very precious - the difference between an effective (i.e., fun) round and an ineffective (i.e., boring/frustrating) round, more than anything else. Meanwhile, the point buy system is all well and good, but it's cripplingly expensive to buy a natural 18, pre-racial mods. Your other stats, which are important for things like NADs and skills, are left very limited - far more so than your racial mods can make up. Your race is now a major component to your combat effectiveness, and that's generally positive in my view - except in this context, when it limits your character options. Why aren't doppelgangers good rogues, or drow good wizards? Heck, dwarves are arguably better wizards than drow. I want to change that.
My proposal is this: give each character an 18 in their class' primary attack roll ability score. Just automatically: "New character? Here ya go - have an 18. It's a fighter? 18 Strength. It's a rogue? 18 Dexterity." For classes that have multiple primary attack stats (clerics, warlocks, etc.), pick one of them. If you want, you can pay 3 points from your point buy to buy it up to a 19, or 4 more (total of 7) to buy it up to a 20.
To compensate for this, reduce racial bonuses and point-buys. The point buy is easy: make it a 13-point buy instead of a 22-point buy. The cost of a base 16 is 9 points, and what you're basically doing is applying a base 16 with a racial modifier to get the 18. Racial ability modifiers require a bit more work. Since you're effectively applying a racial bonus to the primary stat, you need to reduce each race to one +2 bonus (humans to none - sad but fair). I'd say that the best way to do it would be to let players choose which one of the racial bonuses they'll keep. Halflings could have +2 Dex OR +2 Cha, instead of both; dwarves would get +2 Con OR +2 Wis. One caveat, however: you cannot apply a racial bonus to whichever stat you placed that base 18 into. In the case of characters like an eladrin wizard, then, you'd take the +2 Dex automatically. Humans, as previously mentioned, should get no stat boosts under this system, as it's assumed that their +2 racial mod went to their 18. This sucks a little bit for humans, but it preserves the original intent of their design.
In this system, any race can play any class with roughly equal ability. The free 18 is the great equalizer - it brings everyone up to the minimum expected capability for the class. Racial stat bonuses now do what they really ought: flavor the way that members of a given race play a given class, rather than determining which classes are viable. And as a bonus, once you boil it down, it's fairly easy to understand, as illustrated thus:
tl;dr
All races now gain a +2 racial bonus to an ability score of their choice in place of their normal racial modifiers. If a race previously gained +2 bonuses to two fixed ability scores, it now gains a +2 bonus in one of those two, with the exception that they cannot gain a racial bonus to the same ability score twice.
Thoughts, comments? Do you see any serious problems with this idea?
Like dwarven weapon training, it's unbalanced if a dwarf can start with 20 str.
This messes up the balance of some feats.
Like dwarven weapon training, it's unbalanced if a dwarf can start with 20 str.
I don't see how, really. Dwarven Weapon Training is a good feat, but it didn't magically become better because of an extra point of damage or two. One point of damage isn't much of a gamebreaker in my book - even with multi-attack powers it's still only three or four damage, nearly insignificant against most creatures even at low levels. Stats are the weakest component of a character's damage bonus.
Feats which grant attack bonuses, however, are a different story. Hellfire Blood is too good under this system, and really needs to be nerfed to act like, say, Dwarven Weapon Training.
However, I'm more interested in the mechanical effects of this change than whether my premise is wrong.
Mechanical effect: Everyone is forced to have an 18. Player options for customizing ability scores are lowered. Racial bonuses are lowered, making races slightly more similar. Humans get the screw. That's about it.
Basiclly, everyone within the same class will have far more standardized ability scores. May I suggest just making one standardized stat array that every character must use?
I genuinely do feel that starting without an 18 is too problematic to be mechanically viable. And getting a 20 is just as problematic as it was before. I find that combat is only fun for individual players if you hit. Missing usually has no effect, which results in a turn without taking effective action for most characters and disappointment over the miss itself.
Do you find that the difference in your game between a player with 16 and one with 18 to be that great? You're probably going to hit about 50% of the time with a 16 and 55% with an 18 and 60% with a 20. Is this difference that noticeable in your games?
However, I'm more interested in the mechanical effects of this change than whether my premise is wrong. It's right for the games I play; it may be wrong for yours. That's why the House Rules board is a'la carte.
The mechanical effect of giving everyone an 18 and no racial bonuses is that it takes away certain good race/class combinations. I like the fact that Elves are better rangers than Tieflings and Tieflings are better Warlocks than Elves. I think that little +1 is enough to show players this bit of difference without making one character severely underpowered compared to another.
If your intention is to not give certain races an advantage in certain classes over other races, you probably did it. The only thing you may want to look out for are some specific feats that make it more appealing for less popular race/class combinations. In the Martial Power book, there are feats that help races like the halfling be a better fighter since halfing fighters are not that popular for power level reasons. Such feats are intended to help with the power level. What you end up doing is making these feats more powerful.
I think that when all of the power books come up, there will be feats to help less popular race/class combos. Perhaps you should look at those to see if you like them.
Let's keep the "You can play without a 20 debate" for the Character Development Forum. It doesn't belong here.
If you wanted to allow something like this, just allow any race to take an optional variant that allows them to add +2 to any one stat in the beginning (like a human) rather than have 2 fixed +2 stats.
That won't break anything - as one of the posters said, the difference between 16 and 18 is tiny. So is 18 and 20.
But, personally, I don't reall see it as all that helpful or necessary.
I do agree though that something needs to be done.
Perhaps instead...the point-buy pool could be lowered a bit, and each class could carry its own ability score modifiers in its prime stats, just as races do? Fighers could get +2 Strength, +2 (something else that I don't know for sure should be Con perhaps), and so on?
- Tiefling Fighter
- Half-Elf Ranger
- Dwarf Rogue
- Dragonborn Wizard
- Eladrin Cleric
And find out if they are playable. Not saying they're great choices, but they can be still be enjoyable.
And find out if they are playable. Not saying they're great choices, but they can be still be enjoyable.
It's just that different people have a different definition of "playable." If playable means having a 20 in your main attack stat, then none of those characters are playable.
It's just that different people have a different definition of "playable." If playable means having a 20 in your main attack stat, then none of those characters are playable.
But that's more of a CharOps exercise than actual playability. There's a difference between getting the best numbers possible, and playing through 30 levels of a campaign. Good player, good PC > Good player, bad PC > bad player, good PC > bad player, bad PC IMHO.
What you've done now is guaranteed that some race/class combinations will have an 18 in their primary stat, and others will have a 20. So there's still a gap, the gap is still +1 (or 5%), and so some races (ability score-wise) will still have a slight advantage with certain classes than others. So what exactly did you accomplish?
All races now gain a +2 racial bonus to an ability score of their choice in place of their normal racial modifiers. If a race previously gained +2 bonuses to two fixed ability scores, it now gains a +2 bonus in one of those two, with the exception that they cannot gain a racial bonus to the same ability score twice.
Thus: humans keep their standard +2 variable bonus, while an eladrin would gain +2 variable and +2 Int or Dex (unless they placed their variable bonus in Int or Dex, at which point they must choose the other).
Finally, I'm really not interested in whether you think it's necessary. I tend to play with optimizers, and am an optimizer myself, and playing a character without a starting 18 feels crippled. Thus, characters like tiefling fighters will never be played in my group, by me or by any of the other players. Thus, whether you like this rule for your situation is irrelevant - these are the facts of life where I am, and I'd like to open up options for different character builds. I do want to maintain the mechanical balance of the game, however, so pointers on actual mechanical problems that this change would create would be highly appreciated.
Reading your post as written: It simply makes non-humans weaker.
Reading your post as I think you intended it: It makes humans weaker. Barring racial attributes, a Goliath PC focusing on strength would always be strictly better statwise compared to a human. To compare, you've stripped both races out of one +2 bonus, and force players to compare racial bonuses of human vs. racial bonuses of Goliath & a +2 bonus to stat. Not a fair trade.
Finally, I'm really not interested in whether you think it's necessary. I tend to play with optimizers, and am an optimizer myself, and playing a character without a starting 18 feels crippled. Thus, characters like tiefling fighters will never be played in my group, by me or by any of the other players. Thus, whether you like this rule for your situation is irrelevant - these are the facts of life where I am, and I'd like to open up options for different character builds. I do want to maintain the mechanical balance of the game, however, so pointers on actual mechanical problems that this change would create would be highly appreciated.
So in your group, the definition of playable is at least an 18 in the starting stat (without crippling the secondary stats). In this case the simplest solution is to increase the point buy from 22 point to something higher. Just determine what stats you think a playable eladrin hammer using fighter should have, then reverse engineer to determine the point buy you need. The reason I suggested a hammer fighter is that eladrin do not have stat bonuses for the primary or secondary stats for such a character. This method is a lot simpler than moving the +2 stat bonus around.
Still gives humans the screw though. Their ability to have a variable stat bonus is what helps make up for their lack of +2 to 2 different stats. If you give every other race this ability, you should probably give humans +2 to 2 stats of choice.
Nobody's liked my idea for +2 to two ability scores by class?
Oh well, it was a thought. Back to the drawing board.
Aw...
Nobody's liked my idea for +2 to two ability scores by class?
Oh well, it was a thought. Back to the drawing board.
No, it's good. It makes the races a bit too similar, but it accomplishes what you want it to do and does it well.
Perhaps races can give you a stat bonus to certain stats and classes can too, but they won't stack?
So an Eladrin rogue gets +2 to Dex or Cha from rogue and +2 to dex and int from being an eladrin, but not if he takes +2 dex from the class. A human gets the +2 from the class and then +2 to a stat of choice other than that stat.
End result-- non humans get +2 to their primary attack stat and +2 to two others. Humans get +2 to their primary attack stat and +2 to one other and all their awesome human stuff.
No, it's good. It makes the races a bit too similar, but it accomplishes what you want it to do and does it well.
Perhaps races can give you a stat bonus to certain stats and classes can too, but they won't stack?
So an Eladrin rogue gets +2 to Dex or Cha from rogue and +2 to dex and int from being an eladrin, but not if he takes +2 dex from the class. A human gets the +2 from the class and then +2 to a stat of choice other than that stat.
End result-- non humans get +2 to their primary attack stat and +2 to two others. Humans get +2 to their primary attack stat and +2 to one other and all their awesome human stuff.
Now that's constructive. lol
If I'm reading that right...basically you can apply a +2 to any one of the prime stats of the class, except for stats that your race already boosts? Is that about it?
It sounds alright to me. Just not sure if I've got the right idea from what you said.
Over the last weeks I grew fond of the idea of giving every race 2 +2s only one of which has to be from the two listed in the PHB. (*Of course*, you're not allowed to make that one +4, silly.)
Reason being that most players I know straightly rule out races for their characters if they don't get a +2 for their primary stat and I can't really hold it against them. That is especially arkward since Str is abundant as a primary attack stat but rare as a racial stat bonus.
As a side effect humans get a significant power surge with two free +2s which I'm not unhappy about despite them being slightly above the other races.
In addition I found some racial powers to be especially antisynergetic to the stat boni of that race (One at-will from another class sounds so great for the Half-Elf until you try to find something with Con or Cha as attack stat which isn't Warlock *sigh* back to Commander's Strike again.)
Over the last weeks I grew fond of the idea of giving every race 2 +2s only one of which has to be from the two listed in the PHB. (*Of course*, you're not allowed to make that one +4, silly.)
Still some confusion, apparently... This quote is basically the rule that I'm proposing, except for the part about humans getting a second stat boost. All races except for humans get precisely two +2 racial bonuses: one that you can choose, just like the human bonus, and one that must be one of the two racial bonuses listed in their PH1/PH2/MM entry. The one that you choose freely from among all six stats cannot be in the same stat as the one that you chose from your race - in other words, you can't have a +4 racial bonus in a stat. Humans stay exactly as they are right now.
Reason being that most players I know straightly rule out races for their characters if they don't get a +2 for their primary stat and I can't really hold it against them. That is especially arkward since Str is abundant as a primary attack stat but rare as a racial stat bonus.
As a side effect humans get a significant power surge with two free +2s which I'm not unhappy about despite them being slightly above the other races.
In addition I found some racial powers to be especially antisynergetic to the stat boni of that race (One at-will from another class sounds so great for the Half-Elf until you try to find something with Con or Cha as attack stat which isn't Warlock *sigh* back to Commander's Strike again.)
Exactly, and I hadn't considered how this would apply to Dilettante. My least favorite racial ability... Starts so weak, and can become so stupidly overpowered in Paragon. I still feel that it starts too weak. -_-'
So in your group, the definition of playable is at least an 18 in the starting stat (without crippling the secondary stats). In this case the simplest solution is to increase the point buy from 22 point to something higher. Just determine what stats you think a playable eladrin hammer using fighter should have, then reverse engineer to determine the point buy you need. The reason I suggested a hammer fighter is that eladrin do not have stat bonuses for the primary or secondary stats for such a character. This method is a lot simpler than moving the +2 stat bonus around.
The problem with just increasing the point buy is that it doesn't do anything about the racial limitations on class selection. It ameliorates them slightly, but mostly what it does is increase the power curve. People would still play a minotaur hammer fighter, but their other stats would simply increase across the board or they would be able to start with 20 Strength instead of 18.
Also, I'm not trying to eliminate racial distinctions entirely. That's why I'm proposing altering only one of the racial stat bonuses. The other one has to come from the race, which significantly affects the feel of the character. Dwarven fighters under this system will still be naturally inclined toward hammers, axes, and polearms. Eladrin fighters will still be just a bit better than average with heavy blades. You should still have to adapt yourself somewhat to your race's tendencies. The idea is that any race can play any class with roughly equal effectiveness, not that any race can play any character. I object that eladrin are currently fairly poor fighters, because that limits character design on a fundamental level. I have no problem with their lack of skill with a hammer.
except for the part about humans getting a second stat boost. All races except for humans get precisely two +2 racial bonuses: one that you can choose, just like the human bonus, and one that must be one of the two racial bonuses listed in their PH1/PH2/MM entry. The one that you choose freely from among all six stats cannot be in the same stat as the one that you chose from your race - in other words, you can't have a +4 racial bonus in a stat. Humans stay exactly as they are right now.
I don't think that you want to keep Humans as they are unless you consider them overpowered and want to nerf them. As is Humans have the advantage of choosing one +2 bonus freely. I don't think that this is a good trade for two fixed +2 boni so we should expect their other racial features as a bundle to be slightly above par to make up for that.
Now when other races get to pick one +2 stat freely as we both independently thought up, the Humans lose in comparison as their racial feature package cannot be considered in itself equal to other races' features plus a fixed +2 stat bonus.
One could think up some nerfs and balances to find an exact compensation but I'd just be content with Humans being slightly overpowered by giving them two free +2s and their other racial features.
For example, being able to Teleport away from a marked target so that he'll be forced to chase after me, and there'll be no opportunity attack. It's not all about the numbers when you're building a character.
And for the recording, the differences between a 16, 18, and 20, are big, because of the way monsters are designed in the MM. If you buff your player's starting stats, be ready to buff your mobs too.
As a player of an Eladrin Paladin... a class that Eladrin are clearly not designed for, I've found that while the numbers aren't great, other things can make the class worth playing.
For example, being able to Teleport away from a marked target so that he'll be forced to chase after me, and there'll be no opportunity attack. It's not all about the numbers when you're building a character.
I understand that playing a "sub-optimal" race for your class can provide an enjoyable experience - indeed, that's the biggest reason that I think this change is worthwhile. Every race is unique, and this adjustment would not change that. The reason I think things need to change, though, is this:
And for the recording, the differences between a 16, 18, and 20, are big, because of the way monsters are designed in the MM. If you buff your player's starting stats, be ready to buff your mobs too.
The differences are very important if you consider the mechanics of monster design. One point difference in the modifier of your primary ability score will mean the difference between many hits and misses of daily powers of the course of your character's lifetime - literally, in some cases, the difference between life and death for yourself or a party member. I think that all of the available races are good, and all should have an opportunity to make use of their unique talents with any class. And the statistical realities of 4E combat hinder them in that.
Finally, keep in mind that it's no easier or less costly for most characters to get a 20 in their primary stat. It is, however, much easier to get an 18. Since most monsters appear to be designed around starting with an 18, this is good. A 20 thus represents a substantial advantage, and should be costly. What this change attempts to circumvent is forcing gnome rangers to start with 16 Strength or 16 Dexterity, statistically suboptimal numbers which create an unnecessarily weak character. If you want a weaker character for roleplay reasons, you don't have to make a change - I don't understand that mentality, but I'm an optimizer at heart and I certainly won't stop you from doing it. But I don't particularly like the idea that goliaths are doomed to be worse druids than devas.
I don't see how, really. Dwarven Weapon Training is a good feat, but it didn't magically become better because of an extra point of damage or two. One point of damage isn't much of a gamebreaker in my book - even with multi-attack powers it's still only three or four damage, nearly insignificant against most creatures even at low levels. Stats are the weakest component of a character's damage bonus.
If you don't think 1-2 points of damage are game breakers, then why do you think a difference between 16 and 18 is?
When 18 is the new 10, players won't be happy unless their characters have 20 in their primary stat.
All races now gain a +2 racial bonus to an ability score of their choice in place of their normal racial modifiers. If a race previously gained +2 bonuses to two fixed ability scores, it now gains a +2 bonus in one of those two, with the exception that they cannot gain a racial bonus to the same ability score twice.
Thus: humans keep their standard +2 variable bonus, while an eladrin would gain +2 variable and +2 Int or Dex (unless they placed their variable bonus in Int or Dex, at which point they must choose the other).
How would you compensate humans when you give every other race one of the human's primary features (the ability to choose which stat to put the +2)?
Finally, I'm really not interested in whether you think it's necessary. I tend to play with optimizers, and am an optimizer myself, and playing a character without a starting 18 feels crippled. Thus, characters like tiefling fighters will never be played in my group, by me or by any of the other players. Thus, whether you like this rule for your situation is irrelevant - these are the facts of life where I am, and I'd like to open up options for different character builds. I do want to maintain the mechanical balance of the game, however, so pointers on actual mechanical problems that this change would create would be highly appreciated.
If you are truly an optimiser, the only way you can make an optimiser want to choose any race for any class is if all races are exactly the same. Once you raise the bar on the lower end races, there will still be other differences between the races that start to be more significant than ability stat. Perhaps every class will end up choosing the elf because of their elven accuracy power.
The fact is as an optimiser you can clearly see which races are better at which classes. For an optimiser, the choice of race will be dictated by which abilities of that race is better suited for the class. Even if you fix the ability score rule, there will always be something else. You will never reach your goal where every optimiser can say that no particular race is superior for any particular class.
I would like to know what exactly is the problem you have. Do you simply not like the fact that no optimiser would choose a tiefling fighter? Do you not like the fact that some race/class combos are better than others and that you have found out which ones they are? Do you simply want to play an inferior combo, but do not enjoy it?
If you don't think 1-2 points of damage are game breakers, then why do you think a difference between 16 and 18 is?
Attack bonus. Attack >>> damage. A couple points of damage more or less rarely makes a difference in the enjoyment of a given round of combat. Attack bonus makes a large difference, because it determines whether or not you are able to do something effective. And last I checked, nobody particularly enjoys being ineffective, while everyone enjoys being effective. Combat isn't the only part of the game, but it's the part that the rules deal with and very frequently the most time-consuming part of the game. When you have to wait five to ten minutes between doing anything at all (and five-plus minute rounds are the norm in my groups), it sucks pretty bad when you can't even do anything effective. And being effective in combat means hitting, nine times out of ten. Your attack bonus is only one point lower if you have a 16 than if you have an 18, it's true. But that's a 5% difference in your chance to actually accomplish something fun on your turn.
How would you compensate humans when you give every other race one of the human's primary features (the ability to choose which stat to put the +2)?
I don't actually consider that the main appeal of humans. Their racial features are absolutely excellent, and powerful enough that I think they equal every other race's plus the other races' second stat boost. +1 all NADs, a bonus feat (an increasingly viable choice with new feats available), more skills, and an extra at-will power (tactical flexibility, and very very good for classes like wizards and invokers)? I think humans look just as appealing even when other races have some versatility. Besides, as things currently stand, it doesn't make a difference anyway. If you want to play a given class and build, your ideal options are the one or two races who have the appropriate ability modifiers, or humans. And if humans are a good choice in that scenario (and they are, at least in my mind), they won't be any worse here.
If you are truly an optimiser, the only way you can make an optimiser want to choose any race for any class is if all races are exactly the same. Once you raise the bar on the lower end races, there will still be other differences between the races that start to be more significant than ability stat. Perhaps every class will end up choosing the elf because of their elven accuracy power.
The fact is as an optimiser you can clearly see which races are better at which classes. For an optimiser, the choice of race will be dictated by which abilities of that race is better suited for the class. Even if you fix the ability score rule, there will always be something else. You will never reach your goal where every optimiser can say that no particular race is superior for any particular class.
I would like to know what exactly is the problem you have. Do you simply not like the fact that no optimiser would choose a tiefling fighter? Do you not like the fact that some race/class combos are better than others and that you have found out which ones they are? Do you simply want to play an inferior combo, but do not enjoy it?
If you really want to pick nits about what constitutes an "optimizer", then you're right. However, I don't consider that a very valuable criteria for examining this change. This falls under Rule of Life #19: "You can't make everyone happy." (Rules of Life are numbered arbitrarily.) I can't make pure optimizers happy for the exact reasons that you describe. However, I can attempt to make the people that I play with happier. And we've all been irritated that some races are flat out proscribed for certain classes, and others are clearly mechanically inferior. WotC did a great thing for the game by making race more important and powerful in 4E, but at the same time the existence of racial ability score modifiers gums the workings by very clearly saying that goliaths are automatically better barbarians than tieflings.
The problem there is the primary ability score for the class: when absolutely every attack that you have uses one ability score to determine its most important variable (chance of hitting), it's hard to say that fire resistance and some fiendish backlash when you get hit are worth a 5% reduction in your combat effectiveness. If you want to RP a tiefling barbarian, I'm all for that, but there's absolutely no reason that you should have your combat effectiveness reduced in the process. Giving every race the chance to put one of their ability modifiers into that primary stat eliminates this difference in effectiveness entirely. Yes, goliaths would still make slightly better Con barbarians than tieflings, but the importance of secondary and tertiary stats for every class is so far below that of primary stats that it's frankly laughable. The tiefling Rageblood barbarian isn't substantially worse in combat terms than its goliath equivalent under this system, and they get some interesting tricks that help make up the difference. Will a pure optimizer care? No - he'll take the goliath anyway. But I'm not marketing it to them, I'm marketing it to my group. Moreover, I'm not marketing it to anyone on these boards. I just want external feedback on possible mechanical effects of this change that I might have missed.
Frankly, I'm saddened by the fact that there's been very little actual discussion of those mechanical effects.. If you don't think it would satisfy your conception of the role of races in 4E, that is absolutely your prerogative. If you've had a good experience playing a mechanically suboptimal race/class combination, I'll be the first to applaud. (If your experience was good because it was a suboptimal combination, I don't get it, but that's my prerogative.) But like I said, this isn't D&D ShamWow!. I'm not trying to sell you something. There are lots of very clever individuals on these boards who have good insights into the impact of mechanical changes. I could use that before undergoing something this fundamental. Are there feats or powers that might become very badly broken if this happened? I don't think so, but I'd love to hear if there are.
However, I can attempt to make the people that I play with happier. And we've all been irritated that some races are flat out proscribed for certain classes, and others are clearly mechanically inferior. WotC did a great thing for the game by making race more important and powerful in 4E, but at the same time the existence of racial ability score modifiers gums the workings by very clearly saying that goliaths are automatically better barbarians than tieflings.
The problem there is the primary ability score for the class: when absolutely every attack that you have uses one ability score to determine its most important variable (chance of hitting), it's hard to say that fire resistance and some fiendish backlash when you get hit are worth a 5% reduction in your combat effectiveness.
...
There are lots of very clever individuals on these boards who have good insights into the impact of mechanical changes. I could use that before undergoing something this fundamental. Are there feats or powers that might become very badly broken if this happened? I don't think so, but I'd love to hear if there are.
My appologies if my comments have not been helpful. When you described your group as optimisers, I felt that they would still tend to favour certain classes and not choose others due to other racial features. Even if you give every race the choice of one of the +2 attributes, I felt that they would still find other reasons not to pick certain race/class combos. That was my criticism of what you proposed. My other criticism was not giving humans enough to compensate for giving other races one of the human's benefits. If you feel that these are not issues with your group, then I cannot argue with that since you know them better than I.
As for possible broken issues with allowing the choice of +2 to any ability, I cannot see any. Any such possible brokenness would likely have existed with another race that has the right combination of +2's.
I won't comment on this particular subject any longer... allowing this 'hack' destroys half of a race's uniqueness... sure, racial abilities are fine, but it's not just those abilities that make the races what they are.
My appologies if my comments have not been helpful. When you described your group as optimisers, I felt that they would still tend to favour certain classes and not choose others due to other racial features. Even if you give every race the choice of one of the +2 attributes, I felt that they would still find other reasons not to pick certain race/class combos. That was my criticism of what you proposed. My other criticism was not giving humans enough to compensate for giving other races one of the human's benefits. If you feel that these are not issues with your group, then I cannot argue with that since you know them better than I.
As for possible broken issues with allowing the choice of +2 to any ability, I cannot see any. Any such possible brokenness would likely have existed with another race that has the right combination of +2's.
The human thing is actually the sort of feedback I'm looking for, albeit something I'd already considered. I do appreciate that.
I think you misinterpret a large part of why the character races are different. It's not just mechanics. All classes are not created equal due to flavor as well. Elves are simply more naturally graceful and wise than the other races, while dwarves are naturally more resiliant and jovial.
I won't comment on this particular subject any longer... allowing this 'hack' destroys half of a race's uniqueness... sure, racial abilities are fine, but it's not just those abilities that make the races what they are.
One possible interpretation of race, I'll concede. However, I find that it also forces races into niches. I see no compelling reason, thematically, why an elf couldn't be just as good a fighter or warlord as a dragonborn. I think that what an individual actually does should be more important than what it gains naturally from its race. Most people here apparently don't, and that's fine. Nonetheless, I don't really care if you share my views on the role of race. What I do care about is how this change will actually affect the mechanics of the game. Fluff can be altered freely, and that's all that your view of the necessity of racial uniqueness is. There is no reason that I can see that the game system will be fundamentally undermined if races are made more flexible and a bit less distinctive. You're right to note that game mechanics aren't the only thing altered by this change. However, I've already decided that I like the way the new racial fluff plays out, so mechanics are the only thing that I actually care about.
people would hit more and be happy.. of course.. do that just till lv 4 max. I still thinks characters are too weak before that, and if they dont have the ultimate race/class combo aptimized, they will get F&*ยจ! of course its up to the DM to menege the situation.
This isn't actually about those problems, though, but about the ones that arise with player race stats.
What I might do is allow this houserule when your race doesn't give you a boost to your attack stat, but only give the character 9 points to play with instead of 13. That way you can have, say, a dwarf hammer-fighter with an 18 Strength, an 18 Constitution, a 12 Wisdom, and everything else a 10 or 8.
Of course the above example might be a bad one considering the existance of Dwarven Weapon Training, but just consider it worse-case-scenario.
It just means there able to block the blow or Parry it or some such. Or there just realy sneaky like and running around like a damn goblin or such.
You dont need 18 in a stat to play its just a whole +1 differance. SURE it be nice to have it but is it a MUST have?
No. How is it a must have to have a +11 to hit then a +10 to hit?
Missing a target when you roll a 13 isnt a big deal to me He could just be great in that ability or something Each monster has there strengths and weekness.
Missing that big Elite monster with rolling a 14 or 15 agest one of his defences (Say Fortitude for example) Might be frustrating but not a big deal Ive tossed monsters where players had to get an 18 to hit there Fort but only needed a 12 to hit there Will or Ref and a 14 or higher to hit there AC
This is with a +2 Weapon Prof bonus and 16 into the Stat as well
Its a Pain yes you get hurt alot yes. BUT its the Elite/Solo monster Its not so pos to get smacked constently.
Now if you where playing something eles Like say a Pure Drow Campain eveyone must be a drow.
Then as a houserule i could see that a drow gets +2 to some ability school based off of like what house they pick there drow or such as the "Favor" of loth or whatever just to make class's more appiling in your eye for your Drow players now.
I like this houserule with the exception of allowing non-racially boosted ability scores to be boosted up to 20.
What I might do is allow this houserule when your race doesn't give you a boost to your attack stat, but only give the character 9 points to play with instead of 13. That way you can have, say, a dwarf hammer-fighter with an 18 Strength, an 18 Constitution, a 12 Wisdom, and everything else a 10 or 8.
Of course the above example might be a bad one considering the existance of Dwarven Weapon Training, but just consider it worse-case-scenario.
That's a more restrictive variant than I'd prefer, since you can already get a stat to 20 by paying the same cost that I outlined above. It seems like it'd work just fine, though, and accomplish the intent of the rule.
Missing a monster to me isnt a real big deal its apart of combat Missing dosnt mean you hit the thin air in the space next to them
It just means there able to block the blow or Parry it or some such. Or there just realy sneaky like and running around like a damn goblin or such.
All you've done there is provide descriptions of what missing can look like in character. I don't think that descriptions of a miss make missing any more fun for the player.
You dont need 18 in a stat to play its just a whole +1 differance. SURE it be nice to have it but is it a MUST have?
No. How is it a must have to have a +11 to hit then a +10 to hit?
Actually, yes. Run the numbers on monster attacks and defenses compared to player attack and defenses. A one-point difference in attack bonus isn't just an 11 compared to a 10. It's a 5% difference in your ability to accomplish something fun on your round.
Missing a target when you roll a 13 isnt a big deal to me He could just be great in that ability or something Each monster has there strengths and weekness.
Missing that big Elite monster with rolling a 14 or 15 agest one of his defences (Say Fortitude for example) Might be frustrating but not a big deal Ive tossed monsters where players had to get an 18 to hit there Fort but only needed a 12 to hit there Will or Ref and a 14 or higher to hit there AC
This is with a +2 Weapon Prof bonus and 16 into the Stat as well
Its a Pain yes you get hurt alot yes. BUT its the Elite/Solo monster Its not so pos to get smacked constently.
Monsters with very high defenses are indeed a challenge. I would submit, however, that it's not a very enjoyable challenge. If you need an 18 or higher to hit an enemy (a possibility at high levels under standard 4E), you have a 15% chance of actually doing something useful. You can express more-or-less the same feeling by saying that you have a 15% chance to avoid being dazed on your turn. Further, the idea that monsters' weaknesses justifies a reduced hit chance is ridiculous. Unless the monster is far too powerful or far too weak for the group, a one-point difference in attack bonus is still a 5% difference in effectiveness.
Now if you where playing something eles Like say a Pure Drow Campain eveyone must be a drow.
Then as a houserule i could see that a drow gets +2 to some ability school based off of like what house they pick there drow or such as the "Favor" of loth or whatever just to make class's more appiling in your eye for your Drow players now.
And this logic doesn't apply to other campaigns because...? If drow can be differentiated by training and inclination in a drow-only campaign, why can't any race do the same in a more general setting? Most people seem to have a real problem with seeing races as monolithic. Saying that elves are always wiser and more agile than other races is exactly the same as saying that Americans are more intelligent and honest than citizens of other countries. It's a generalization based on the image that the society itself prefers to project, not an accurate representation of the people involved. Races should be substantially more complicated than their ability scores and PHB entries indicate. The efforts and experience of an individual are more important than their genetics; their culture only provides a rough template, which they can largely accept or reject as they choose.
I've house-ruled a few things to boost the usefulness of each stat independent of class, which has the effect of making unconventional stat builds within each class more playable and enjoyable.
Strength - maximum light load is strength x 5. strength x 10 is maximum normal load, and carrying a normal load carries a -2 check and -1 speed (in addition to armor penalties). Max load is still str x 20. This makes strength more important for characters that want to carry more stuff or wear heavier gear, regardless of class (and is just more realistic).
Constitution - I'm experimenting with Con modifying surge value instead of surges per day, which would be a slight boost to the overall *power* of the stat. Not sure how it's going to work out. it's also a change that would have to affect monsters probably, and I don't like changes that are that far reaching.
Intelligence - Removing AC benefits. Instead, all characters get a number of bonus feats = to 1/2 their intelligence mod. That alone is enough to provide a decent AC boost through feats if the player so chooses, and they would instead gain their dex bonus to AC, so it wouldn't be as much of a gimp to int based clothies as people think. This makes both int and dex more unique and attractive to all characters.
Wisdom/Charisma - probably fine how they are, as they're the more skill based stats and have lots of non-combat importance. I've toyed with the idea of wisdom affecting experience gained and adding a system of reputation for charisma to affect like the one seen in the d20 george rr martin adaption.
I believe the biggest flaw in the system of race/class playability to be the weakness/homogeneity of the stats that removes the system of trade-offs from previous versions, making the only important stats for a character the three that affect their powers.
D&D has always been this way. They've come a long ways from earlier editions. Lots of 2e point buy characters had 3s in whatever stats werent important for their class.